German-French Plan for Force Worries U.S. : Defense: Senior official fears the proposal could freeze Washington out of its European security role.

Signaling the possibility of a split with two key allies on the future shape of European defense, a senior Bush Administration official says there is strong concern in the White House over a French and German plan to create a joint military force.

His concern, expressed in an interview with The Times, is the first indication from within the upper reaches of the Administration that the Franco-German proposal is seen as a potentially troublesome development. Western Europe is responding to the crumbling of the Soviet Union and the disappearance of the Moscow-led Warsaw Pact.

The military plan was unveiled Wednesday by French President Francois Mitterrand and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. They called on the European Community to “wholly or partially” put European security in the hands of the Western European Union, a nine-nation alliance that so far has no military structure.

The proposal reflects France’s interest in playing a central role in Europe--although it pulled out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s unified military command structure a quarter-century ago--and in furthering its links to its economically powerful neighbor to the east. It also reflects Germany’s interest in maintaining the Franco-German alliance that was reopened more than a decade ago by then-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing.

French sources said the force envisioned by the two leaders would be as large as 50,000 troops. The unit, which would serve as the centerpiece of a European-only military operation, would operate outside the command and geographical boundaries of NATO, thus raising the risk that the United States could be frozen out of the primary role it has played in the defense of Western Europe since World War II.

NATO was formed in 1949 amid growing apprehension in the West about Soviet hostility in the wake of the 1948 coup in Czechoslovakia and the Berlin Blockade. Ten European nations plus Canada and the United States agreed to organize a common defense against an attack on any member. The addition of Greece and Turkey in 1952 emphasized the broad area to be covered, and West Germany’s rearming and joining the alliance in 1955 gave it a solid anchor in Central Europe. Spain joined in 1981, bringing NATO’s membership to 16 nations.

NATO’s three military commands cover the Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel and North Sea as well as Europe. Its forces include hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of planes and tanks, and nuclear weapons. NATO’s civilian side, the North Atlantic Council, meets regularly to consider major policy issues.

Decades of East-West standoff ended in the last few years with the collapse of communism and the Warsaw Pact, and with it came calls for a re-evaluation of NATO’s role. The Franco-German proposal for a military force outside NATO adds a new dimension to the question.

The senior Administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that a full assessment of the Franco-German plan could not be made until it is fleshed out and U.S. officials have had a chance to examine it and to consult with their French and German counterparts.

Nevertheless, he reflected on the potential it raises for upsetting the United States’ long-held position in European military affairs.

“It’s an attempt to deal with the problem that’s right at the core of the relationship between the United States, the (European) Community and NATO,” he said. “As the community develops its unity and seeks to add, as an element of that unity, security policy, then how does that relate to the central function of NATO, which is European defense?”

The proposal was made three weeks before Bush and the other leaders of the 16 nations in NATO meet in Rome for a summit in the wake of German unification, the departure of communism from Eastern Europe and the reduction of nuclear weapons that Bush and Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev have separately announced in recent weeks.

Thus, Administration officials view the plan, and a separate British and Italian proposal, as efforts to deal with the still-emerging security picture in Europe in the period leading up to the NATO summit and another such meeting in December planned by the members of the European Community, which has never had a military role comparable to that played by NATO.

At the heart of U.S. concern is that even as it seeks to pull back its nuclear weapons and troops, it could also be forced by a competing military organization to relax some of the political authority afforded Washington by its military presence.

“What we seek is a recognition that--as it has been for 40 years--the United States continues to be a part of the European defense structure and, therefore, that the heart of the European defense structure ought to be NATO,” the senior official said.

He said it remains unclear whether the Mitterrand-Kohl plan will challenge this.

“But anything which creates a separate defense entity, yes, tends to be at variance to that,” he said.

Asked if the plan holds troubling prospects for U.S. policy-makers, the official, who is generally cautious in his language, replied, “Yeah, one can read it in a way that would cause us serious concern.”

But, he added, “I don’t know that I’m troubled yet because it’s not clear what’s really intended. It may just be in artfully drawn language. But if it isn’t, then there’s concern.”

The skepticism in Washington echoes a cautionary note sounded Wednesday by British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, who said it would be “useless and dangerous to overlap” NATO’s mission.